Latham changes the terms of the contest

'Put on your seatbelt and hang on." The words of Labor backbencher Kelvin Thomson after Mark Latham's election as ALP leader yesterday conveyed both the excitement and risk inherent in the decision. Rather than return to the known, cautious quantity that is Kim Beazley, MPs surprised by punting on the bolter. The closeness of the vote, 47 to 45, is evidence that neither candidate was seen as a sure thing to beat John Howard. Yet within hours it was clear the generational change of which Mr Latham and his supporters spoke would, at least, be interesting, even entertaining, for observers and possibly invigorating for Labor and its supporters. On the anniversary of the 1972 election of the Whitlam government, another member for Werriwa has emerged as a leader promising to transform the Labor Party. The inherent excitement of change aside, however, voters have seen little to suggest Mr Latham is ready to lead the party or the country. Nor does he have much time to win them over (Gough Whitlam had five years as opposition leader).

If Mr Latham yesterday spoke repeatedly of the future, it was partly because unlike his predecessor, Simon Crean, or his rival, Mr Beazley, he has no track record as leader. The job of making up most voters' minds in his favour is almost all ahead of him. And what is known - the crude language, the hotheadedness, the over-the-top attacks on US President George Bush - counts as much against him as the positives, of which there are a few. There is no problem with "ticker" (and Labor MPs' decision suggests they have had enough of timidity and small targets). As he showed in his press conference yesterday, Mr Latham has wit, a gift for the vernacular, and a positive outlook coupled with an appreciation of his political vulnerabilities. Of his two-vote victory, he remarked that in 1935, after another time of division, future Labor prime minister John Curtin won the leadership by one vote - "I'm one up on him". Mr Beazley would have been hamstrung by such a margin; Mr Latham can portray it as the product of political momentum. He also affirmed the importance of the US alliance and acknowledged the difficulties his past comments created. He conceded he would have to moderate his approach and language - "no more crudity" - but said he was "not a white-bread politician" and would "do things according to my own style". This new mood of restrained larrikinism didn't take hold entirely in the Latham camp - one MP exulted at victory by "a bee's donger" - but a similar approach worked for Bob Hawke. He, too, was once seen by opponents as a highly flawed individual, a loose cannon, who could be undone by the responsibilities and scrutiny that attend the party leadership.

None of this changes the fact that Labor has gambled on an unproven political quantity in its second leadership contest in less than six months. On one reading, the key to the outcome was the continued interplay between the ABC (Anyone But Crean) group who have destabilised the party for the past two years and the ABBA (Anyone But Beazley Again) group. This time round, though, both candidates took far greater care to avoid damaging attacks and emphasised the need for immediate reconciliation and unity after the vote. This is easier said than done; party solidarity does not come in a ready-to-assemble kit. Mr Howard (and, one suspects, many voters) was predictably having none of it yesterday. "I do have to observe the Labor Party is now less fit to govern than it's been at any time over the last seven-and-a-half years. Not only is the Labor Party bitterly divided over policy, but now it's bitterly divided over personalities and leadership." That is the kind of ammunition Labor's brawling has given to the Coalition to fire at its new leader. Even assuming his colleagues close ranks, sans knives, behind him, Mr Latham has to persuade voters this is the case. He must then win their confidence in his personal qualities as a leader and in his party's policies. All this must be done, most likely in a matter of months, against a formidable opponent.

There are no good reasons for an early election, but Mr Howard has shown he will seize every advantage in a close contest. Yesterday he again reminded colleagues they were "only eight seats from political oblivion", and his great achievement of winning the past three elections is simultaneously a heavy handicap. The promise of change is seductive in a way that "more of the same" can never be. It helped propel Mr Latham into the Labor leadership and could work for him again in the federal election. Hence Mr Howard's emphasis on Labor's divisions and its lack of readiness to govern. But yesterday's vote was not a contest of policies so much as personalities; the differences in the policies of the candidates, both from Labor's Right, were largely unremarkable. The possible exception was tax policy, which Mr Latham's own erratic performance as shadow treasurer betrayed as a work in progress. As a prolific, even exuberant, publisher of ideas, he cannot be accused of being "policy lazy", but he can thank Mr Crean for reforming the party's structure and laying a foundation on which he can build, particularly in the areas of education and health policy. Mr Crean deserves the senior frontbench position that Mr Latham indicated he would be given. As for Mr Beazley, his race is run.

Today, what is immediately apparent is the contrast of styles between Mr Latham and his Labor rivals, and between the new Opposition Leader and the Prime Minister. This may be more important electorally than many earnest analysers of policies, undeniably important though these are, are able or willing to acknowledge. When Victorians warmed so quickly to Steve Bracks after he replaced John Brumby, it wasn't policies that changed Labor's fortunes almost overnight. Style must ultimately be backed by substance, but it is also more immediately persuasive. If Mr Latham can quickly persuade voters, as he did MPs, that he is made of the right stuff for leadership, simply by restoring Labor's belief in itself, they may also be willing to take a chance on him as prime minister. His win is a reminder that there are no certainties in a two-horse race, and that is what the next election will be, too. The question is whether Labor has left its bold run too late.